Iran YET again in Violation of the Nuclear Treaty

Sir Bandelot · September 27, 2009

I still don't understand your real position. Are you more concerned with the letter of the legalities than the actual likelihood that Iran is hellbent to have the Bomb, complete with delivery systems capable of wiping Israel off the map?

I believe that Iran likely wants to have nuclear weapons. I believe that most countries who are in similar conditions, who are not allies of the United States/ West, also want nuclear weapons. Part of the problem is that countries can't get respect or cooperation unless they have the nukes. And that is a huge mistake for the whole world.

In this game, it is illegal for the goalie to even possess a grenade. If one team accuses the other of having a grenade, and the other team says we will allow you to search us for any grenades, then we should do that first. To me the IAEA is like the referee, and the rules of the game are defined by laws. Although the existence of laws do not give us 100% assurance of our safety. But without it I believe we would fall into violent chaos. Law is one of the few things we have to keep in check those with ruthless ambitions, who manipulate facts and media to make things happen, for their own personal advantage. I believe that people like this exist, and they are a great a threat to us.

Now today, EVERYBODY is getting on the slam Iran train. Even Boob Rae is trying to score political points with it in his statements.

My guess is that Obama and others know what it's all about.

- The US knew this facility existed for a while already.

- Iran suspected it would be used against them in a surprise announcement at the UN, and sent a letter to the IAEA at the last minute to take some of the heat off themselves.

I believe the US knows what kind of facility it is. Obama is playing a poker game with Iran, to put them in a vulnerable position where they can be dealt with more effectively at the political table. We the public are merely subjects to this high theatre. It's a risky strategy that could either be a success, or cause another pre-emptive war that might not be necessary.

Wild Bill · September 27, 2009

I believe the US knows what kind of facility it is. Obama is playing a poker game with Iran, to put them in a vulnerable position where they can be dealt with more effectively at the political table. We the public are merely subjects to this high theatre. It's a risky strategy that could either be a success, or cause another pre-emptive war that might not be necessary.

Well, that's your POV. It still seems to me that it presupposes Iran is not intentionally developing the Bomb and actually intends to use it, likely against Israel.

If your view prevails and it turns out to be wrong...

ToadBrother · September 28, 2009

Anyone up on Ahmedinnerjacket's history would know that...but you decided to post in this thread anyways.

His history is irrelevant. The President of Iran's powers are limited. I have no idea why people worry so much about the guy. The real center of power in Iran is in Qom. Ahmadinejad is just a sideshow. Even if he wanted to, he couldn't do anything about the nuclear program. That is firmly in the hands of Khomeini.

ToadBrother · September 28, 2009

Well, that's your POV. It still seems to me that it presupposes Iran is not intentionally developing the Bomb and actually intends to use it, likely against Israel.
If your view prevails and it turns out to be wrong...

If Iran did do that, Tehran and Qom would be molten glass within a day. Even the Russians would abandon them at that point.

The nuclear program, just like North Korea's, is very obviously being developed as a means of preventing any sort of substantial military attack on the country as well as making Iran a regional power.

Wild Bill · September 28, 2009

If Iran did do that, Tehran and Qom would be molten glass within a day.

That is an unproven premise, not a gospel fact! Israel is a small country. It would not take many missiles in a first strike to eliminate Israel's ability to retaliate.

So who at that point would turn Tehran and Qom into molten glass? America? Russia? Britain?

This is what I meant in a previous post. The world would be horrified at what had just happened. The last thing most countries would want is MORE cities nuked! Morally, western countries would be unable to muster the popular support to do such a thing.

Especially when nuking the Iranian cities would be killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, who only had the misfortune to have evil leaders. Under the Iranian religious dictatorship, the average citizen has little or no input into the actions of their government.

No, far more likely would be surgical strikes aimed at forcing regime change. Likely there would be a popular uprising among the Iranian people.

Such action might or might not prove successful in ousting the fanatics from power. Still, Israel would have been utterly destroyed!

I say again, by the world view often expressed by Iran's leadership, to that kind of personalities it may seem worth it!

ToadBrother · September 28, 2009

That is an unproven premise, not a gospel fact! Israel is a small country. It would not take many missiles in a first strike to eliminate Israel's ability to retaliate.
So who at that point would turn Tehran and Qom into molten glass? America? Russia? Britain?

Most likely the US.

This is what I meant in a previous post. The world would be horrified at what had just happened. The last thing most countries would want is MORE cities nuked! Morally, western countries would be unable to muster the popular support to do such a thing.

I doubt very much it would be an issue of public support. I expect there are protocols in place that if Israel suffered a nuclear attack, the belligerant would be attacked in turn.

Especially when nuking the Iranian cities would be killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, who only had the misfortune to have evil leaders. Under the Iranian religious dictatorship, the average citizen has little or no input into the actions of their government.

Them's the breaks.

No, far more likely would be surgical strikes aimed at forcing regime change. Likely there would be a popular uprising among the Iranian people.

I honestly don't see how surgical strikes would do that. It's pretty clear Iran has been preparing for many years for precisely such a tactic.

Such action might or might not prove successful in ousting the fanatics from power. Still, Israel would have been utterly destroyed!

I say again, by the world view often expressed by Iran's leadership, to that kind of personalities it may seem worth it!

Iran's real leadership says very little.

Shady · September 28, 2009

Iran is also not signatory to any nuke treaty. They were, but you can opt out of it.

I'll ask again.

I think you were asked when Iran opted out of the treaty? When did they? Or are you just talking out of your ass again?

GostHacked · September 28, 2009

I'll ask again.
I think you were asked when Iran opted out of the treaty? When did they? Or are you just talking out of your ass again?

Unlike you, I can admit when I was wrong. And I seemed to be wrong here. I was getting Iran mixed up with another country. I know Israel has never been signatory to any nuke treaty so they can do basicly whatever they want.

So I will retract my statement about Iran not being part of the NPT.

It's funny that when you got called on your lie in this thread, you ran away and stopped posting. laugh.gif

Do you read this forum every day? Do you post every day? Do you admit when you been caught on a lie?

For real Shady.

myata · September 28, 2009

Would anybody here be able to post the list of confirmed violations (concerns and speculations aside) of NPT by Iran?

I thought the beef was that us, the peaceloving West, did not want them to use any nuclear technology, period; or else, a perfectly legal technology that we thought may not be good for them because (unlike some of our friends who actually may have a serious bunch unprotocolled nukes, plus being involved in conflicts from day 1, plus pressing with agressive policies full speed and so on) we just happen to think that they should not?

GostHacked · September 28, 2009

There are only 3 countries not signatories to the NPT. India, Pakistan and Israel.

Moonlight Graham · September 29, 2009

Maybe Iran should give up its weapons when Israel actually ADMITS it has weapons and lets inspectors in to see them.

GostHacked · September 29, 2009

Maybe Iran should give up its weapons when Israel actually ADMITS it has weapons and lets inspectors in to see them.

That would be a nice start. Would show some good faith by Israel. You should be subject to the same inspections that you are demanding on someone else.

myata · September 29, 2009

There are only 3 countries not signatories to the NPT. India, Pakistan and Israel.

Two of which are our (Western) allies, of varying degree. And no concerns, whatsoever. Surprise? Coincidence? Or pattern?

M.Dancer · September 29, 2009

Maybe Iran should give up its weapons when Israel actually ADMITS it has weapons and lets inspectors in to see them.

Isreal may have the cheapest and most effective nuclear weapon of all. The one that their enemies imagines they have.

Now true, they may have a weapon. Or they may have a blueprint...or that may have a weapon that they can't be sure of would work....they have never conducted a weaposn test.

But most importantly as far as MAD goes, their enemies don't know.

What we do know is they won't confirm or deny they have one (and why would they tell their enemies they are unarmed?)....and if they do have a weapon, what gain can there be if they admit they have x number of warheads? Only that their enemies will pursue obtaining x plus x number of weapons starting an arms race.

And secondly, what we do know is Israel has never threatened another country with eradication from the pages of history.

M.Dancer · September 29, 2009

That would be a nice start. Would show some good faith by Israel. You should be subject to the same inspections that you are demanding on someone else.

The non proliferation treaty and membership to the IAEA has a carrot and stick function. Nations that are in good standing receive technological benefits.

Israel has never asked for those benefits.

M.Dancer · September 29, 2009

There are only 3 countries not signatories to the NPT. India, Pakistan and Israel.

There are more than 3. Cuba, Serbia and Palestine for example.

There are 193 members of the UN, The treaty has 185 members

myata · September 29, 2009

Israel has never asked for those benefits.

Really, so simple, just say "No"! Unless... could it be that they're getting those benefits (in the form of massive financial and military assistance) anyways and regardless (of NPT, it's position in the conflict or anything else)?

GostHacked · September 29, 2009

Really, so simple, just say "No"! Unless... could it be that they're getting those benefits (in the form of massive financial and military assistance) anyways and regardless (of NPT, it's position in the conflict or anything else)?

It could be the US that is in violation of the NPT by supplying nuclear arms (of any kind) to Israel. No matter if it is a small tactical nuke like a buker buster or large nukes like ICBMs.

M.Dancer · September 29, 2009

It could be the US that is in violation of the NPT by supplying nuclear arms (of any kind) to Israel. No matter if it is a small tactical nuke like a buker buster or large nukes like ICBMs.

It could be that the moon landings were faked...

....do you see how pathetically weak the argument is when it has to rely on tinfoil hat conjecture?

Any transfer of nuclear technology, even peaceful to a non NPT member is a violation....The US can't even keep blowjobs secret....besides, according the the traitor Vaananu, the work was domestic

DogOnPorch · September 29, 2009

It could be the US that is in violation of the NPT by supplying nuclear arms (of any kind) to Israel. No matter if it is a small tactical nuke like a buker buster or large nukes like ICBMs.

The US has never given Israel nuclear weapons. Israel's nuclear weapons...if they actually exist...are something cooked up with South Afrikan and French cooperation.

bush_cheney2004 · September 30, 2009

It could be the US that is in violation of the NPT by supplying nuclear arms (of any kind) to Israel. No matter if it is a small tactical nuke like a buker buster or large nukes like ICBMs.

No problem...the US "supplied" Canada with nuclear weapons until 1984, and many Canadians thought they were nuclear free. Just put them in a US controlled "zone".

GostHacked · September 30, 2009

No problem...the US "supplied" Canada with nuclear weapons until 1984, and many Canadians thought they were nuclear free. Just put them in a US controlled "zone".

Nice try. Whatever land was used was then (to the best of my knowledge) considered US land in order for the missles to be in place. The US embassy in Ottawa here is considered US soil. It's a technicality, but seems to be important. Any, US military base in a foreign country is considers US soil.

Am I correct here?

GostHacked · September 30, 2009

So? Are you afraid of the terrorists getting "mad" ?

Indeed. Because when they get mad, things seem to blow up. Kind of funny how that works.

M.Dancer · September 30, 2009

Nice try. Whatever land was used was then (to the best of my knowledge) considered US land in order for the missles to be in place. The US embassy in Ottawa here is considered US soil. It's a technicality, but seems to be important. Any, US military base in a foreign country is considers US soil.
Am I correct here?

No you are not. The Bomarc missiles were on Canadian soil (canadian bases) but under US control.

Edited September 30, 2009 by M.Dancer